Leadership Crisis in Sri Lanka

These days the general comments one hears around in Colombo are that the Easter Sunday killings and destruction has impacted badly on the quality of our leadership, on our intelligence services even as much as it did on the ISIS bombers. Whether it could have been avoided or not is the question that calls for a response. From whom? Who is accountable to whom? The leaders are strutting around as if they were a law unto themselves unaccountable to none, unaware of SHAME.

The Easter Sunday is however not the only occasion on which our leaders have sent this nation reeling for want of appropriate policy decisions; shakeups of this tenor had happened before and we, the people, have to pull out of this Easter Sunday mayhem even as we pulled through on many of the earlier instances. Yes, this time too we have to move on, not without some serious damage to the dubious quality of the present leadership, to the economy, to the concept of pluralism as well as to the rule of law.

There are no visible signs of seeking alternative strategies to contain the damage caused to the nation and economy. A vicious, well planned campaign, not by any means a veiled one, to destroy the business of the Muslims is afoot. Muslim companies and their products are listed openly on the social media calling for the boycott of their products. There has not been even a whimper from our leaders condemning this move or on the need to seek strategies to contain this alarming trend from the racist counter endangering the unity within the nation. The boycott will negatively affect the already limping economy and the investment climate both from local and foreign sources. Are these causing anxiety to our leaders? If not, are they complacent hoping that their silence will indicate empathy towards the call by extremists to boycott those enterprises owned by Muslims. Negativity from politicians? Is garnering votes and more votes their only concern?

Disenfranchisement of the Plantation Workers

As early as 1948 the controversy concerning disenfranchisement resulting in statelessness of some among the Indian plantation workers led to political upset internally eventually spreading to India as well. A serious conflict situation was averted through mature leadership by the then political leaders.  They chose negotiation as a tool to resolve the problem in hand rather than blow it out of proportion to become confrontational.  It took over a decade to find a solution acceptable to all through skilful management by competent leaders like Prime Ministers Lal Bahadur Shastri in India and Srimavo Bandaranaike in Sri Lanka. This is an illustration of what can be achieved by mature leadership supported by experienced and well equipped bureaucracy. In the matter referred to above, the leaders and officials from the two countries must share the credit for dousing what could have flared into a battle cry affecting the nerve center of Sri Lankan economy, the plantations, while rupturing Sri Lanka’s relations with India. Mature leadership is not the chosen guideline of policy making in the subsequent years.

1956

1956 and after are the benchmark years when the country had its share of problems to deal with consequent to populist policy making by subsequent governments. The absence of leadership qualities and grounded vision for the nation were the main reasons for this. Sri Lankan history is replete with instances of social upheaval due to the shortsightedness of their leaders.  The ‘Glasgow quote’ amply exemplifies why countries face the kind of situations as we did over the years. Sri Lankan leadership allowed simple problems to snowball into major issues which then assumed emergency proportions that required a complex purview. These are the years when the game plan changed from people centric politics to political gain for a win-win position for the politician. Leaders looked at political maneuverability as a tactic for personal advantage regardless of its impact on the welfare of the people; increasing the vote base gathering for electoral success took precedence over communal harmony unity or national development.

The moment that the Sinhala Only legislation was passed, two reactions followed; one, the Sinhalese felt they had become more relevant in an assertive way while, two, the rest of the ethnic communities felt marginalized. That it is necessary to recognize one’s mother tongue cannot be questioned; but this truism assumed a discriminatory complexion with the strong presence of a multi ethnic population in the country.  This remained so despite English being proclaimed the link language later on to knit together this multi ethnic population.

Appeasement and trust building were two very urgent qualities vital at this juncture but the leaders both from the Government and the minorities, had closed the channels for both. Consequently, poor management of the issues in hand produced the conflict situation.  What followed is history. This could have been avoided if mature leadership had tried to contain the yawning gulf among the communities.

During the following years, problems linked to the 1956 language legislation followed and became increasingly complex with the chauvinists entering the fray to resolve matters. The result was the 1958 Tamil Sinhala riots that killed and maimed people and destroyed homes; much of it could have been avoided by a more circumspect leadership, who could have avoided viewing all matters ethnic through the prism of immediate advantage to themselves. Consequent to these events, large sections of the, Burgher community conversant in English, but lacking competence in working in the vernacular, migrated to other countries. They feared they would become second class citizens in the land of their birth. Their migration was a great loss to the country, again a leadership failure of colossal proportion.

English – Link Language

Facilities available to gain proficiency in the English language did not keep pace with intent. English was declared the link language, a palliative given to make peace among the angry communal groups. The use of English was much as in the years, prior to the introduction of Sinhala Only legislation. Rural youth were frustrated since their training in Sinhala Only excluded them from the high profile opportunities available to those competent in English. The youth revolt in 1971 referred to English as the kaduwa that spliced society into two, the English speaking and the non- English speaking ones. The youth took to arms to correct this and to improve their economic conditions. The movement came to be notorious for its brutality. They killed and were killed in turn.

A receptive leadership engaged with the people in the post- election years could have perceived policy from a multiple group interest that would have helped to gauge the impact of the language policy on the multi-ethnic society. Although the Sinhala Only policy resonated with sections of the majority community, it created suspicion and mistrust between the members of the plural society.

In summation, the 1956 legislation created the environment for alienation of the minorities, the creation of a majority minority division, justified the use of violence to secure a cause, and in turn made use of State violence acceptable as a tool to control violence in society. Race and religion became important features in political dialogue. Leadership over time permitted Buddhist clergy to influence policy although we are not a theocratic state. This created tension among the non -Buddhists.

Brief reference is made to the policy decisions taken by the leaders in the late 60’s and early 70’s, many of which were reverted subsequently for poor policy judgment. The nationalization of plantations, economic interests and Christian schools together contributed to destabilizing the existing system. A rethink of these changes compelled them to revise their policy. The plantations were returned for private management, Christian denominational schools were independently managed. Much later private schools were established to satisfy the felt need of the student population in the country.

Executive Presidency

The UNP government that came in the late 70’s introduced the Executive Presidency, a drastic structural change that further complicated Sri Lankan governance procedures.  Every President who was elected promised the removal of the executive president. But the lure of power made all to renege and the system continues. The immediate past President retained it and passed the 18th Amendment permitting the incumbent a third term. The powers of the president were extensive which provoked the initiator to comment flippantly that under constitution he could do anything except to change a man into a woman or vice versa.

The impunity from justice during his tenure in office encourages dictatorial tendencies, a lack of accountability, corruption, lawlessness and personal insecurity.

A fundamental transformation in approach and management of the system is required. Change through elections is not the answer. It can very well mean that yet another lot will come in with the same or similar outlook and people’s circumstances will remain the same, similar to the election of the unity government in 2015.

Concentration on the sustainability of leaders makes concern for the people they have been elected to serve recede in importance; then the administration loses direction and no policy of importance is initiated or implemented.

The first President JR .Jayewardene’s obsessiveness with stay in power made him contravene the democratic principles on many occasions. Elected Prime Minister; he became president.  Later to keep the MPs of his party to stay in course he collected their unsigned letters of resignation to be used when necessary; an absolutely impermissible action in a democracy.

During the outbreak of communal violence the President as the head of state did not take timely action. He stated publicly that he was giving the army leave of action which meant that there was no law and order in the country and the Tamil minority was left without protection while the hoodlums torched and attack them. Estrangement of the two communities was complete and the 30 year war that followed impoverished the Tamil community and led to large scale migration to other countries. This is the origin of the Diaspora, a group said to influence international opinion to highlight policy contrary to Tamil interest.

The end of the war saw international outcry about war crimes that were committed during the course of the war particularly towards the concluding stages. Assurances for a fast track inquiry to put this matter to rest has not yet seen anything conclusive. The government’s need to take a public stand on reconciliation strategies for a policy stand is not visible. Several ad hoc approaches are in progress but there is no way of gauging the scale of their success.  An office of missing persons has been set up but mothers and relatives are still walking around looking for their near and dear ones. Its role seems a protracted one in the play of the leaders.

The Unity Government to Rescue Democracy?

The present government was set up to control the abuses under the previous government. Undemocratic practices were the way of life. Strong tendency towards dictatorial system, corruption of an unprecedented level, abuse of the rule of law and divisive communal politics were rampant. Sections of the SLFP and the UNP formed the unity government to do away with the abusive practices and to bring the offending leadersof the previous government to book through judicial scrutiny.

What a disappointment! One of the first acts of the President was to nominate defeated candidates from the SLFP to the national list contravening the basis laid out to nominate persons to the national list. Following on this questionable path the UNP became entangled in the Central Bank Bond Scam, which to date had not been investigated to the satisfaction of the public.  After a time the President who came to investigate the corruption charges of the previous government violated the constitution by removing the Prime Minister and appointing the former President as the Prime Minister who in turn nominated a cabinet in place. Sri Lanka had the unique citing of having two PMs and two Cabinets sitting concurrently. It was a question of enough is enough. When the President called for dissolution of Parliament then the judiciary intervened to declare it unconstitutional leaving the Prime Minister and the cabinet of the unity government in place. The President’s action was a gross denial of the constitution and conduct unacceptable in a president who came on the agenda to right the wrongs of the previous government. Accountability to public opinion is totally missing and politician behave as if there are no constitutional precedents to follow. The poor showing of the leadership needs condemnation.

Easter Sunday Tragedy

The national tragedy keeps growing. The Easter Sunday attacks appear to be the result of gross neglect both of leadership and the failure of the intelligence services to act on information received which could have averted the disaster. Lives were lost, people have suffered immense physical suffering as well as destruction of property. The economy is in a dire state and a bad jolt given to the tourist industry which was gaining buoyancy only to have international travel advisory posted against visiting Sri Lanka. 

How could political leaders have permitted the setting up of a “Sharia University” except that many of the leaders became vulnerable to the temptation of easy money that came their way? Corruption has not been arrested by this government nor the rule of law established. The easy way to survive the tide appears to ride the ethnic hate which has brought together the traditional leaders and the Buddhist clergy spouting hate contrary to the lofty teaching of the Buddha.

Mechanism of Bargaining Used to Summon Cabinet Meetings

The latest peccadillo of the present government was the President’s refusal to chair the cabinet meetings if the Parliamentary Select Committee set up to investigate the Easter Sunday Bomb attacks was not withdrawn. Although Cabinet meetings were not held for two weeks it was summoned on Tuesday last and the constitutional crisis was stalled. That it should be possible for the Head of State to bargain thus is a grave leadership shortcoming; a total lack of integrity so vital in governance.

This combination of opportunistic political leaders and sections of the Buddhist clergy are mindlessly wrecking the peace, security and development of the country. Civil society has to wake up and agitate for their rights. The coming election is a good opportunity for the people to make a wise choice. If their choice continues to be wanting, we as a nation will be doomed to darkness without salvation. Leadership crisis in the country will be complete.

A recall of past indiscretions in policy decisions are made here to emphasize the need for well thought of policies and strategies mindful of their consequences. Communication skills to engage with the citizenry must prevail if appropriate choices are to be made for the benefit and the development of the nation state.